Responsiveness and interpretability of the portuguese version of the quebec back pain disability scale in patients with chronic low back pain

Spine

Volumn 39, Issue 5, 2014, Pages

  Vieira, Ana C ^a   Moniz, Sara ^b   Fernandes, Rita ^c   Carnide, Filomena ^d   Cruz, Eduardo Brazete ^c  

^a Centro Hospital Alto Ave EPE   (Portugal)

^b Hospitalar de Lisboa Norte   (Portugal)

^c INSTITUTO POLITÉCNICO DE SETÚBAL   (Portugal)

^d UNIVERSIDADE DE LISBOA   (Portugal)

Author keywords

activity limitation; CLBP; interpretability; patient reported outcome measure; QBPDS; responsiveness

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; DISABILITY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; LOW BACK PAIN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; PHYSIOTHERAPY; PORTUGAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUEBEC BACK PAIN DISABILITY SCALE; RATING SCALE; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TREATMENT DURATION; TREATMENT RESPONSE; CANADA; CHRONIC DISEASE; CLINICAL TRIAL; LANGUAGE; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS; TRANSLATING (LANGUAGE);

ADULT; CHRONIC DISEASE; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LOW BACK PAIN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PORTUGAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUEBEC; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ROC CURVE; TRANSLATING;

EID: 84896365011     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000159     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Delitto A. Are measures of function and disability important in low back care ? Phys Ther 1994; 74: 452-62. (Pubitemid 24139591)
2. Beattie P, Maher C. The role of functional status questionnaires for low back pain. Aust J Physiother 1997; 43: 29-38. (Pubitemid 27148523)
3. Davidson M, Keating JL. A comparison of fi ve low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness. Phys Ther 2002; 82: 8-24. (Pubitemid 34052112)
4. Smeets R, Koke A, Lin C, et al. Measures of function in low back pain/disorders. Arthritis Care Res 2011; 63: S158-73.
5. Lauridsen HH, Hartvigsen J, Manniche C, et al. Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2006; 7: 82.
6. Streiner DL, Norman GR. In: Streiner DL, Norman GR, eds. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. 3 rd ed. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications; 2003.
7. Haley SM, Fragala-Pinkham MA. Interpreting change scores of tests and measures used in physical therapy. Phys Ther 2006; 86: 735-43.
8. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60: 34-42. (Pubitemid 44856236)
9. Demoulin C, Ostelo R, Knottnerus JA, et al. Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale was responsive and showed reasonable interpretability after a multidisciplinary treatment. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 1249-55.
10. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10: 407-15. (Pubitemid 20025670)
11. Straford PW, Binkley J, Solomon P, et al. Defi ning the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris Questionnaire. Phys Ther 1996; 76: 359-65. (Pubitemid 126501431)
12. Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamovicz M, et al. The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: measurements properties. Spine 1995; 20: 341-52.
13. Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamovicz M, et al. The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: conceptualization and development. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49: 151-61. (Pubitemid 26123926)
14. van der Roer N, Ostelo RW, Bekkering GE, et al. Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity, functional status, and general health status in patients with non-specifi c low back pain. Spine 2006; 31: 578-82.
15. Schoppink LE, van Tulder MW, Koes BW, et al. Reliability and validity of the Dutch adaptation of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Phys Ther 1996; 76: 268-75. (Pubitemid 26105748)
16. Mousavi SJ, Parnianpour M, Mehdian H, et al. The Oswestry Disability Index, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: translation and validation studies of the Iranian versions. Spine 2006; 31: E454-9.
17. Rodrigues MF, Michel-Crosato E, Cardoso JR, et al. Psychometric properties and cross-cultural adaptation of the Brazilian Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale questionnaire. Spine 2009; 34: E459-64.
18. Melikoglu MA, Kocabas H, Sezer I, et al. Validation of the Turkish version of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale for patients with low back pain. Spine 2009; 34: E219-24.
19. Suh KT, Kim JI, Lim JM, et al. Validation of the Korean version of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. J Spinal Disord 2012; 25: 447-50.
20. Bendeddouche I, Rostom S, Bahiri R, et al. Traduction, adaptation transculturelle et validation de la version marocaine de la Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 2011; 54: e263-4.
21. Fritz JM, Irrgang JJ. A comparison of a modifi ed Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Phys Ther 2001; 81: 776-88. (Pubitemid 32119062)
22. Ostelo RWJG, Deyo RA, Stratford P, et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain-toward international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine 2008; 3: 90-4.
23. Hicks GE, Manal TJ. Psychometric properties of commonly used low back disability questionnaires: are they useful for older adults with low back pain ? Pain Med 2009; 10: 85-94.
24. Fordyce WE, ed. Back Pain in the Workplace: Management of Disability in Nonspecific Conditions. Seattle, WA: IASP Press; 1995.
25. Waddell G, Feder G, McIntosh A, et al. Low Back Pain Evidence Review. London: Royal College of General Practitioners; 1996.
26. Patrick DL, Deyo RA, Atlas SJ, et al. Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with sciatica. Spine 1995; 20: 1899-908.
27. Cruz EB, Fernandes R, Carnide F, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale to European Portuguese language. Spine 2013; 38: E1491-7.
28. Domingues L, Cruz E. Adaptação cultural e contributo para a validação da escala patient global impression of change scale. Ifisionline 2011; 2: 31-7.
29. Hurst H, Bolton J. Assessing the clinical signifi cance of change scores recorded on subjective outcome measures. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2004; 27: 26-35. (Pubitemid 38125045)
30. Beurskens AJ, de Vet HC, Koke AJ. Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain 1996; 65: 71-6. (Pubitemid 26227690)
31. Farrar JT, Young JP, Jr, LaMoreaux L, et al. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 2001; 94: 149-58. (Pubitemid 33016608)
32. Deyo RA, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis 1986; 39: 897-906. (Pubitemid 17229987)
33. Farrar JT, Portenoy RK, Berlin JA, et al. Defi ning the clinically important difference in pain outcome measures. Pain 2000; 88: 287-94
34. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, et al. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006; 4: 54.
35. Kovacs FM, Abraira V, Royuela A, et al. Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity and disability in patients with nonspecifi c low back pain. Spine 2007; 32: 2915-20. (Pubitemid 351339366)
36. Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Knola DL, et al. Linking measurement error to minimal important change of patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 1062-7.
37. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate ? Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 293-307.
38. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2009.
39. Norman GR, Stratford P, Regehr G. Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 869-79. (Pubitemid 27423516)